Case confronting use of AI-generated fictitious legal material shows AI is no substitute for proper legal advice
Holmes Mackillop Solicitors director Craig Donnelly says that a recent Scottish case concerning the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated fictitious legal material shows that AI is no substitute for proper legal advice
A sheriff has issued a stark warning about the dangers of relying on AI for legal research after party litigants submitted references to non-existent cases and legislation in a rent arrears claim.
While there are reports from courts elsewhere in the UK and the USA of cases where AI-generated authorities have been used, reported Scottish decisions on this issue remain limited.
Your Home Partners v Kellichan and Hood appears to be one of the first Scottish cases to confront the use of AI-generated, fictitious legal material, signalling that Scottish courts are not immune to the problems such material can present.
The action was raised in Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court by claimants seeking to recover £5,000 in unpaid rent following the end of a private residential tenancy. The claimants raised the action without any legal representation.
Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, jurisdiction for disputes arising from private residential tenancies – including rent arrears – lies exclusively with the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber), not the sheriff court. Sheriff John MacRitchie held that the action had been brought in the wrong forum and dismissed the claim.
The claimants insisted that the sheriff court was the correct forum. A hearing was fixed to allow them to explain their position. The case then took an unusual turn when the claimants sought to support their position by citing tribunal decisions and statutory provisions which could not be traced. Enquiries confirmed that the cited authorities did not exist.
At the hearing the claimants explained that the references had been generated using an AI tool and had not been independently verified. Sheriff MacRitchie considered whether contempt of court proceedings should follow, noting that submitting false authorities risks obstructing the administration of justice.
Although satisfied the claimants had acted in good faith and had withdrawn the material, he found their failure to verify the information to be reckless and observed that the line between carelessness and contempt was ‘a fine one’.
Commenting on the case, Donnelly said: “A solicitor with expertise in housing law would have identified the jurisdictional issue at the outset, directed the claimants to the correct forum, and avoided the cost, delay and embarrassment of proceedings that were bound to fail.
“More importantly, a qualified practitioner would have known which questions to ask to identify the true nature of the claim and the applicable legal framework. That expertise – knowing what to ask as well as how to interpret the answers – is what distinguishes professional legal advice from the output of a search engine or an AI chatbot.
“This decision is a clear reminder that, while AI tools can produce plausible and detailed responses, they are not a substitute for proper legal advice. Any material generated must be carefully checked against authoritative sources before it is relied upon in court.
“Ultimately, responsibility for the accuracy of material presented to the court rests with the person who submits it.”
ENDS
For further information please contact Craig Donnelly on tel 0141 226 4942